Refereeing standards in the top flight are proving something of a mixed bag again this season.

A few refs are useless, some are alright - but most have such incredible strains and pressures placed upon them they are not allowed to be as good as they could be.

If you listen to players and managers the problem is two-fold - a lack of consistency and a lack of common sense from the referees. But it's hard to blame more than a few of the refs for that.

It's the restrictions placed upon referees that cause so many of the problems.

And people within football can be slightly two-faced when it comes to asking for consistency and common sense.

Of course it depends on your definitions, but allowing referees to use common sense entails trusting them to make the right decisions in the right sort of atmosphere.

If they think it's a clean game and there's just a couple of technical but borderline bookings then they should have it at their discretion not to produce a yellow card.

Similarly, if they feel a player is boiling over and persistently fouling then they should be able to show a card without having to wait for a particularly bad foul if they feel that is right to calm the game down.

It's all about adding to, and controlling, a good game of football which is exciting and entertaining but played within the rules.

There's no scope for that, though, with an assessor at every game giving each referee a mark of 100 to start with and then deducting from that for every booking they miss or mistake they make. How negative.

Sure, mistakes should be pointed out and bad refs demoted. But a referee should be judged on how well he has done in the context of the game, not a set of rules on a piece of paper which cannot always be so rationally applied to such an emotional, cut-and-thrust sport.

Having said that, I can see why those rules are in place and why they are enforced.

Because as much as managers and players call for common sense, they also ask for consistency - not just in a match but week to week.

How often have you heard them say something like 'Vieira wasn't sent off for that last week,' or 'we had a decision like that turned down in the last match.'

If you follow that logic through to it's conclusion then every decision has to be adhered to by the rules or it's inconsistent.

That is underlined by the fact that there is now so much at stake in the multi-million pound world of Premiership football.

A bad decision could one day end up costing a team promotion, the title or a place in the Champions League and millions and millions and millions of pounds.

Surely the best way to try and address the problem is to let referees take charge of a game as they see fit. And when something goes against your team, try and accept it.

It's not easy if you feel an injustice has been done. But you can't expect the world from one man when you accept that players and managers regularly make mistakes too.

Ultimately, how they perform and how good they are will normally affect a game, and a season, more than one referee.

Your shout: Let us know what you think via the usual channels of communication.